Sorry - I didn't explain myself as well as I should. Garnier's tweaking hasn't improved any of the guns, it just removed the guns that were not effective with his mod. Don't get me wrong - I am not complaining about any of the hard work that Garnier has put in. However an official patch or MP modding ability is needed to fix some of the arty issues.Garnier has actually done quite a bit of work to make the artillery more effective. This is why batteries are now scoring dozens of hits/kills per battle instead of maybe 10 cumulatively. Howitzers have been removed completely as they are useless save for cannister. Napoleons too (which I was somewhat surprised about but even at maxed stats a battery of 4 guns was scoring fewer than 10 hits in a 90 minute battle firing constantly). 3 in ordinance are working amazingly well, ask anyone and they will tell you. I think overall (save for Robinson's CSA guns) the Union guns are still dominant despite tweaks, but not a terribly big deal.
It is true that even massed artillery cannot break up an assault in the game on its own. It can take a toll, but most casualties are dealt when both sides are maneuvering or sitting and waiting for the enemy to move. Cannister remains the only ultimate deterrent for a massed assault. The 250 yd rifles were put in place to counteract abuse of cannister, and have done that job admirably although, as noted, there is still cannister fired in nearly every game, just not in the ridiculous amounts we had seen previously. Is it perfect? Not at all; but better than it was? Definitely.
And I'm honestly still confused about your last sentence there :huh: If a massed attack/flanking movement cannot be broken up by artillery fire, why would players shy away from making those moves? Why would they mass around defensive positions backed by artllery if, as you say, that artillery is highly ineffective? Honestly I think I see all of these things every game we play.
The bottomline is that the majority of guns used in the CW were 12 pounders, which are virtually useless in the current campaign. Replacing them with 10pders doesn't "fix" the problem, it only minimizes the problem by removing the ineffective 12pdrs. The way the current game is modeled, 3inch and 10pd guns are very effective at ranges greater than 500 yards. However less than 500 yards the effectiveness isn't that great on a cost/benefit basis and so a gap exists between the 200-500 yard mark. At ranges less than 500 yards they are still effective, but once you hit the 250 yard mark, infantry can kill a proportionally higher number of gunners than any damage inflicted by artillery. In the stock game, this problem was minimized by the fact that infantry range was 160 yards and artillery could dominate in the 160-200yard gap. However the stock game was "hiding" some warts as 12 pdrs never really filled that mid-range gap at 200-500 yards and their end-game stats were skewed by the canister results.
The biggest result has been the neglible effect of long range and counter-battery fire by artillery - especially 12 pdrs. Overall I think it is a good thing that the guns are back and Garnier has done the best he can to achieve it given the tools at his disposal. However, Norb's team needs to fix that gun killing ability for counter-battery fire and improve that longer range effectiveness in the 200-500 yard range. There is no way in hell that batteries would be rolled out in the open facing emplaced guns at less than 500 yards - which is what happens in the stock game all the time as players basically use their batteries as tanks to blast infantry with canister. Unfortunately, Garnier's campaing has neutered batteries to the point that even when they are deployed properly they need to be withdrawn because they will get torn up by infantry as they don't have the ability to inflict any commensurate casualties.
That gets me to my main point, which I didn't fully explain in my earlier post. Artillery is a force multiplier and cannot single-handedly win a battle - nor should it be tweaked to achieve that result either. That being said, the 200-250 yard gap actually hurts play because it ties down MORE troops than should be needed to hold a defensive position. Because infantry can sit back at 250 yards and kill off artillery crews without any adverse effect, MORE infantry is needed to anchor defensive positions. This reduces offensive and movement options by minimizing the amount of troops available for massed/flanking movements and attacks.
The damage that can be done to artillery by infantry in the 200-250 yard range is disproportionate to any inflicted damage by artillery so that MORE troops are needed to defend the position than should be needed. This is further amplified by the fact that guns are manned by 12 men each vice the previous 15 - a reduction of 20% - which makes guns rout 33% faster (guns rout a 6 men so kills of 6 men causes them to rout vice the 9 required with 15 manned guns). Even if guns wanted to stay and fight in the no-man's land of 200-250 yards, their time on that spot is automatically reduced by 33% before they even fire a shot. Infantry can sit back at 250 yards and there are only two viable options - either send in more defending infantry (less troops now available for offensive action) or remove the guns (giving up an anchor point as there is no way to defend it).
By changing to a 200 yard range, there is now an interesting dilemma for both attacker and defender: batteries can now defend themselves and inflict proportional casualties. If the attacker wants that position, he now actually will pay the price and defender will now need to factor in how much damage he is willing to give/take with the guns to hold that spot.
As I mentioned in the post earlier in response to GFran, last night was a perfect situation that this caused a problem. I needed to request infantry support from Harmon to push the lone Yank regiment that creeped up to 250 yards and started picking off my gun crews. At 200 yards, that lone Yank regiment would have been hit hard and I would have been willing to take minimal gun crew loses based upon the math that my 10 guns would destroy that regiment before it got up the hill. Instead, because the guns couldn't inflict any damage I only had two options: get some infantry support ASAP or withdraw. In this case the batteries were not rolled up but were in place for quite some time and had support on both infantry flanks. Had the attacker moved multiple regiments up in that gap, I would have been toast as the arty would have been picked off at 250 yards with no way to defend itself. The only option would have been throwing more troops in there when the whole point of using artillery in such a situation is to free troops up. I don't want to see a situation where artillery is impervious to infantry fire, but I think we have gone from one extreme to another.
As for the issue with the arty batteries overall, they are effective when they are used properly. In the stock game, I generally have my 3inch and 10pd batteries far from the front line. I use my 3inch guns almost exclusively on counterbattery fire and my 10pd batteries targeting infantry unless I need additional CB support. My 12pds (and howitzers if I have them) are much closer up - I keep them generally 100-200 yards behind the front lines and they target infantry exclusively. When deployed as described, I have had batteries account for approximately 25% of the battlefield casualties - without alot of canister expended - which is probably historically low but a reasonable percentage for the game model. I have had situations where the percentage was higher, but that is generally the result of poor generalship by players such as Father General, who refuse to accept that attacking batteries at an elevated defensive position is a poor tactic. I completely understand and agree with the frustration that players have with players rolling the guns up. When I see that, I generally switch all my guns to target artillery and I will eventually knock out the guns - but not quick enough for it to be an effective deterrent.
In the current campaign model, arty inflicts about 10-15% of overall battlefield casuaulties and the aforementioned changes have effectively decreased arty effectiveness by about 50% from the stock game. I understand the reasoning behind the changes - but the problem isn't the game model, it is the tactics used. Players rolling up the guns should be penalized but aren't. Based upon your post, I would assume you would agree that players exploiting column/uber charge mechanics should be penalized as well, but aren't. Unfortunately the changes in the campaign are a bit of mirage and IF losing guns didn't cost so much point wise, you would see less players worry about defending them. That is the only reason why players still protect them because if you lose them, the negative point hit is much higher than any tangible value they have on the battlefield (other than the "prestige" of taking a battery).
